Skip to main content
Original Research Article Open Access SINTA 2 Accredited

The Politicization of Population Data Governance in the Perspective of Principal-Agent

Case Study in Indonesia

Authors

  • Misran 1* Corresponding author
  • Isnaini Muallidin 2
  • Marilou Siton Nanaman 1
  • Satria Iman Prasetyo 2
DOI
10.21787/jbp.14.2022.275-287
Published & Pages
9 September 2022 · pp. 275-287
Manuscript History
Received26 Apr 2022 Accepted5 Jul 2022 Published9 Sep 2022
License
CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Read PDF 453 KB Cite

1,127 Views 988 Downloads

Abstract

Indonesia is one of the list of developing countries in the world. The thing that is most often found in developing countries is vast populations. As one of the countries with the highest demographic bonus, Indonesia ranks at the top of the list for the world's population density. The complexity of the problem of population data in Indonesia has become an enormous homework for the government. The issue of this occupation data has haunted the Indonesian government for a long time. This study aims to analyze the politicization of Indonesian population data governance from the moral agent perspective. This study uses a qualitative approach. Sources of data were collected from previous studies related to the research topic by analyzing the phenomena in Indonesia. The findings of this study reveal the game of politicians and bureaucracy in playing population data. The game is in the form of politicizing data based on political interests. In the principal-agent perspective, where the contract is signed under asymmetric information when one party knows certain relevant things that the other party does not know

Keywords:

Read the Full Text

The full text of this article is available as PDF. Version of record published in Vol. 14 No. 2 (2022).

Open PDF

References

34 references
  1. Berenschot, W. (2018). The Political Economy of Clientelism: A Comparative Study of Indonesia’s Patronage Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(12), 1563–1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758756
  2. Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Principal-Agent Model of Risk Allocation in Construction Contracts and Its Critique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(1), 04013032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000779
  3. Damayanti, R. A. (2018). Hubungan Keagenan Pemerintahan Daerah dalam Konteks Anggaran: Sebuah Agenda Rekonstruksi. EKUITAS (Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan), 15(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.24034/j25485024.y2011.v15.i2.225
  4. De Donder, P., & Hindriks, J. (2009). Adverse Selection, Moral Hazard and Propitious Selection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9056-7
  5. Decker, R. (1985). Agency Law Revisited. Hospital Purchasing Management, 10(7), 15–17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10271829
  6. Hardani, H., Andriani, H., Fardani, R. A., Ustiawaty, J., Utami, E. F., Sukmana, D. J., & Istiqomah, R. R. (2020). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif & Kuantitatif. Pustaka Ilmu.
  7. Hardiningsih, & Oktaviani. (2012). Determinan Kebijakan Hutang: Dalam Agency Theory dan Pecking Order Theory. Dinamika Akuntansi, Keungan dan Perbankan, 1(1), 14.
  8. Hastuti, S. H. D. (2020). Pentingnya Pemanfaatan Data Kependudukan di Era Digital. Jurnal TEKNIMEDIA: Teknologi Informasi dan Multimedia, 1(1), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.46764/teknimedia.v1i1.9
  9. Herdiansah, A. G. (2017). Politisasi Identitas dalam Kompetisi Pemilu di Indonesia Pasca 2014. Jurnal Bawaslu: Pengawal Pemilu Terpercaya, 3(2), 169–183.
  10. Hidayat, E. R., KY, I. G. S., & Astawa, I. N. (2017). Kepemimpinan yang Efektif untuk Masyarakat Multikultur di Indonesia.
  11. Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral Hazard in Teams. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003457
  12. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (2009). Multitask Principal–Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. In The Economic Nature of the Firm (Vol. 7, Issue May, pp. 232–244). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817410.018
  13. ICW. (2020, September 17). Hasil Pemantauan Bansos: 239 Temuan dan Aduan Warga, Tertinggi Terkait Pemotongan dan Pungutan Liar. Indonesia Corruption Watch. https://antikorupsi.org/id/article/hasil-pemantauan-bansos-239-temuan-dan-aduan-warga-tertinggi-terkait-pemotongan-dan
  14. Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries. American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1120–1141. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955075
  15. Itoh, H. (2004). Moral Hazard and Other‐Regarding Preferences. The Japanese Economic Review, 55(1), 18–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5876.2004.00273.x
  16. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (2009). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. In The Economic Nature of the Firm (pp. 283–303). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817410.023
  17. Junaidi, A. (2017). Optimalisasi Fungsi Kartu Tanda Penduduk Elektronik (KTP-EL) Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2013 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2006 tentang Administrasi Kependudukan (Studi pada Dinas Kependudukan dan Catatan Sipil Kota Singkawang). Nestor. https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/nestor/article/view/21013
  18. Keser, C., & Willinger, M. (2007). Theories of Behavior in Principal–Agent Relationships With Hidden Action. European Economic Review, 51(6), 1514–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2006.10.007
  19. Laffont, J.-J., & Tirole, J. (1990). Adverse Selection and Renegotiation in Procurement. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(4), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298088
  20. Lane, J.-E. (2014). Organisation Theory: The Principal-Agent Perspective. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 14(7), 44–51. https://globaljournals.org/item/4332-organisation-theory-the-principal-agent-perspective
  21. Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, J. D. (2001). An Introduction to the Economics of Information: Incentives and Contract. OUP Oxford.
  22. Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. (1998). Information Asymmetry and Levels of Agency Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500301
  23. Muadi, S., MH, I., & Sofwani, A. (2016). Konsep dan Kajian Teori Perumusan Kebijakan Publik. JRP (Jurnal Review Politik), 6(2), 195–224. http://jurnalfuf.uinsby.ac.id/index.php/JRP/article/view/1078
  24. Namazi, M. (2013). Role of the Agency Theory in Implementing Managements Control. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 5(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAT11.032
  25. Purdwiastuti, M. M., & Nofiyanti, R. (2012). Biaya Keagenan dan Kebijakan Deviden: Implikasi Afiliasi Grup Bisnis. UG Jurnal, 6(2), 16–21. https://ejournal.gunadarma.ac.id/index.php/ugjournal/article/view/825/0
  26. Putra, H. S. (2017). Tata Kelola Pemerintahan Desa dalam Mewujudkan Good Governace di Desa Kalibelo Kabupaten Kediri. Politik Muda, 6(2), 110–119.
  27. Raso, J. (2019). Unity in the Eye of the Beholder? Reasons for Decision in Theory and Practice in the Ontario Works Program. University of Toronto Law Journal, 70(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2018-0022
  28. Ross, S. A. (1973). The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 134–139. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1817064
  29. Rubiyanto, Selo, & Widyawan. (2017). Implementasi Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) pada Pemanfaatan Data Kependudukan di Tingkat Kabupaten. Prosiding Semnastek (Seminar Nasional Sains dan Teknologi), 1–10. https://jurnal.umj.ac.id/index.php/semnastek/article/view/2054
  30. Rumlus, M. H., & Hartadi, H. (2020). Kebijakan Penanggulangan Pencurian Data Pribadi dalam Media Elektronik. Jurnal HAM, 11(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2020.11.285-299
  31. Saragintan, A., & Hidayat, S. (2017). Politik Pork Barrel di Indonesia: Kasus Hibah dan Bantuan Sosial di Provinsi Banten tahun 2011. Jurnal Politik, 2(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.7454/jp.v2i1.85
  32. Tambovtsev, V. L. (2019). Management Without Measurement. Terra Economicus, 17(3), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-3-6-29
  33. Wijayati, F. L. (2015). Analisis Pengaruh Kepemilikan Manajerial, Kepemilikan Institusional, Ukuran Dewan Direksi, dan Ukuran Dewan Komisaris Terhadap Biaya Keagenan. EBBANK: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Ekonomi, Bisnis dan Perbankan, 6(2), 1–16. http://ebbank.stiebbank.ac.id/index.php/EBBANK/article/view/72
  34. Yuniarti, S. (2019). Perlindungan Hukum Data Pribadi di Indonesia. Business Economic, Communication, and Social Sciences Journal (BECOSS), 1(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.21512/becossjournal.v1i1.6030

Copyright & Open Access License

Copyright (c) 2022 Author(s). This article is licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0.

Most read articles by the same author(s)